8/6/2019 4.11.09 Letter SJLS to Judge Todd

1/4

EXHIBIT 81

8/6/2019 4.11.09 Letter SJLS to Judge Todd

2/4

SOUTH IERSEY LEGAT SERVICES, INC.CONSLI,&TER LIATIT745 lv{a:'ket Sheet

?,,i:1]J',i'';J;;xi,:#'FAX: (856) 338-9227

Lbucr-qS E. GrnsHLArY, ExnCUTn'E DRESIOR MICFIELL S. MOSKO\TTZ, ESQ. (En. 6318ANN M.GoRMAN,DEpLrry DTRECTOR ABrcArLB. suLLrvAN,Ese. (En.6904KlltrierH M. GoLDlv{AN, DIRECTOR oF LrrrcATroN AND ADVocACy ANDRTW VAZeT,IEZ-SCLROEDINGE& Ese. prr. OSSZELuansru Cut wwcHev, EsQ., MaNAGING ATTORNEY (EXT. 6613) NATASHA Mch,rrRrNr, EsQ. (Err. 6251

April 11,2009 ffiffiffiKStrWffiffiHon William C. Todd,III, P.J. Ch.S'rperior Corirt of New Jersey ,fqpffi f t ?ftflG1201 Bachamch Roulevard r' "t srJusAtlantic Cit]., NJ 08401{700vrA FACSTNTTLE {60s) 44t-3s70 AND REGT.TLAR M.ArL wiLLiAM il TilD,D, F J. il,-

Re: Bank of i\Y as Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWARS.Inc. Asset-Based Crrtificates, Series 2005-ABj v. Ukpe,DocketNo.: F-10209-08f.r,'al iu,i ge I'odll,

We are writing to respond to Plaintiff s letter of April 7,2009 by which counsl objecred toour request to serve subpoenas on the records curstodians of Phelan, Hallinan & Schmieg PC("PHS") and Full Spectrum Legal Services, Inc. ('FSLS") in connection with the Aprii 20,2009plenary hearing. Plaintiff attempts to narrowly constrict the scope of the hearing arguing thatDefbndants are seeking an overly broad array of documents that do not have any bearing on theissues io 'be addressed. As demonstrated belo';,'. the requested docurnent production is neitheroverl.v broad nor irrelevant to the issues"

'ihe starting point for analysis is a January i"6,2009 i,:lephone conference betw;en tlie Courtand co',rnsel in whrch the Court called for a plenary hearing to ge"L r"o ihe bortom of rvhai ii vieweri asa possible s1'siemic Ftoblem invulving the aileged false nr:tarizationof assignments in which alawyer piayed a central role in the p''1e'Js5s. Just prior to writing this letter, I reviewed my lor,;s ci'the tel:4trone E:r;nfetence and the coufi reprrtei's t;rn.: of the oon&rcnce. The Court express;ed ageat deal ofconcerr about the process hy which the assignment in this and other cases was created,tlic circurris:tixrce that the lawyer, Mr. Hallinan, signed the assignment representing one party to theassignntent while his law firm represented ihe other parly. -lhe Court expressed suspicion about thevaiious r:oles piayed by Mr. Hallinan and noted the potential for conflicts. The major problem the

ffitrt T q{t- uunTH.TERSEILEGALSERWCES,D\Ic!f i&: eJu'1*'t 'ltrryes Arlanlic, Eurli.nzfon. t'awden. {.aoe Lfav. Cumberlant!. (iloncester, ,}rrlSalem tJounties8t

8/6/2019 4.11.09 Letter SJLS to Judge Todd

3/4

Court had was not with the alieged falsr.: ::ctarrlz'a,tion by the notary. Rather the problem was withthe attorney's participation in the process. Thc Court also raised the issue of an appropriate remedyarrd recognized the situation could impact a host of foreclosr.ne cases. Ultimately, the Courtetpressed a goal to get to the bottom of the matter and to make sure "ever5body gets it right."

On January 2I,2009, the Court issued the first of several orders and letter directivesfocusing on the plenaryhearing. The initial order called for a plenary hearing on March 3,2009 atuhich Mr. Hallinan and Mr. Strain would testi$. The Order called for production of a single pieceoidocumentary evidence, i.e.,Mt. Strain's notary log.

By letter dated February 24,2009, the Court adjoumed the date for the plenary hearing andpermitted Defendants to depose Mr. Hallinan. In response, by letter dated February 24,2009,Defendants asked the Court to require Plaintiffto produce twelve categories of documentaryelidence including (1) all billings and invoices submitted byPHS and by FSLS for servicesrendered in the preparation and filing of the assignment in the Ukpe case, and (2) all records ofpairrnent to the law firm for the preparation and recording of assignments, including the assignmentinthe Ukpe case Plaintiffs counsel did not object to this request. By letter dated FebruNy 25,2009,the Court required production of these items. However, in the course of il4r. Hallinan'sdeposition over two dates in March 2009, Plaintiffproduced only a $50 invoice and no records ofparment to PHS. Defendants' frustration with the lack of any meaningful document production is apnmary motivation for requesting the document subpoenas.

On March 3,2009,the colloquy about the plenary hearing continued dwing an appearancebycounsel bebre the Court. During the colloquy Defendants noted that Mr. Hallinan's variousroles in the false notarization of the assignments presented cmrflid of interest issues and argued thatarLunderstanding of the economics rnderlying the various rcles was essential to illuminating theconflicts. Economic benefit provides motive for acting in conflict with clients' interests. Ourposition is the false notarizations are not isolated events. Instead they represent one step in acontinuum of actions designed to improperly enrich the law firm and defraud the Ukpes and otherforecl o sure defendants,

To illuminate the law firm's conflicts and rndentand the erfire false notarization Ifraudulent assignment process, Deftndants continue to seek relevant billing and payrnentinformation relating to the preparation and filing of the assignment. For the plenary hearing wehave modestly expanded our request for relevant documents to encompass the billings andpayments relatingto the Ukpes' foreclosure litigation to date. Very little new information is soughtll I {1- ,,a,HTERSE.LEGALSER^,ES,TNC

f f = tJL, \J Semes Atlantic. Burlineton. Camden, Caoe Mav. Cumberland. Gloucester. and Salem Coanties

8/6/2019 4.11.09 Letter SJLS to Judge Todd

4/4

by the subpoenas. Themostnotable exicplion is 1r.rr tax return information relevant to fashioning aremedy' All of*re information sought, ho'wever, is critical to advancing the Court's goal of gettinglo the bottom ofthe rnatter and getting it right"

To the extent any of the requested items in the proposed PHS subpoena have already beendetermined by the Court to be subject to the attorney-client privilege, they are of course exempthom the subpoena's scope. To date these exempted items are:i. The agreement captioned "Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP Attomey/TrusteeAgreement for Handling Foreclosure and Bankruptcies," addressed in Judge Todd's March4.2009 Order. We expressly exempted this item in fl 19 of the proposed PHS subpoena.2. The 3-pages of documents attached to a privilege log previously submitted to the Court,namely 2 tedactedpages captioned "Case Comments to Client," and 1 redacte,l pagecaptioned "Case Notes - In House." These 3 pages were addrcssed in the Court's March 20-2009 Order

As for the proposed Full Spectrum Legai Services,lnc. ("FSLS") subpoena, none of the itemssought in this subpoena has been the subject of a prior ciaim of privilege.

If Plaintiffis successful in limiting the scope of subpoenas it will control the scope of theplenary hearing. In ordering the hearing, the Court indicated that it wanted more information thanilas before the Court at the time. Your Honor grasped the range of remedies available on the basisoithe limited information on the record as of January 16,2009. On March 3,2009,the Courtinstructed all counsel to make remedial suggestiors beyond the obvbus reporting to notary publicauthorities about the false notarization. If the range of remedies is to be expanded to fit the gravityof the behavior, the scope of the plenary hearing must go beyond the fact of a false notarization toaa assignment.

Dated: April 11,2009

Respectfu lly submitted,SOUTH JERSEY LEGAL SEVICES,INC.f\By,

van, Esq.

Dashikawellington vIA REGUr.Art a4AIL AND FACSIMILE Qr5) 636-3999Brian BlakeVIA REGULAR MAIL AND FACSIMILE (856) 313-55014lL T qf ,,,TTT,ERSE'LEGALSERWCES,TNClf i-* '*-ltJ \*r Serves Atlantic. Burlinston. Camden. Caoe Mav. Cumberland. Gloucester, and Salem Counties

THE LAW FIRM OF JAMES VILLERE, JR.